You could do a lot worse than picking up a Nikon D7000 - even if part of the reason I picked it was so I could use my old lenses as well as the 18-105 I got at the same time. Not sure what lens to suggest for macro photography though; I mostly do landscapes and people.

The built in flash is a bit week though, so you might want to consider getting something like the Nikon SB-700 at the same time.

(04-11-2013, 04:27 AM)WegianWarrior Wrote: You could do a lot worse than picking up a Nikon D7000 - even if part of the reason I picked it was so I could use my old lenses as well as the 18-105 I got at the same time. Not sure what lens to suggest for macro photography though; I mostly do landscapes and people.

The built in flash is a bit week though, so you might want to consider getting something like the Nikon SB-700 at the same time.

I use a Canon EOS 5 Mark II. The model of the body is less important than the lens. A decent Macro lens is the component to invest in, IMO. I have a Canon EF 100mm Macro F2.8 L IS. With the addition of image stabilisation I hand hold all my macro shots, while the tripod simply gathers dust! I think I paid around 1K AUD for the lens.

The 100mm also doubles as a wonderful portrait lens. The focal length means your not in your subjects face and being a fast lens the short depth of field (dare I say Bokeh) is really pleasing...

(04-12-2013, 01:25 AM)ben74 Wrote: The model of the body is less important than the lens.

(04-12-2013, 01:25 AM)ben74 Wrote: In terms of brand, you couldn't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon.

Agreed - but if you already have a small (or large) collection of lenses it pays to make sure they will work on the new body... and the other way too, for the times you wish to use good old 35mm film - like I do with my Nikon F1 at times.

Photographers will always disagree which lenses are better of Nikon or Canon, but at least in Norway it seems like it's more third party lenses available that will fit a Nikon F-mount. That might or might not be something to keep in mind, depending on your needs.

(04-12-2013, 01:25 AM)ben74 Wrote: I use a Canon EOS 5 Mark II. The model of the body is less important than the lens. A decent Macro lens is the component to invest in, IMO. I have a Canon EF 100mm Macro F2.8 L IS. With the addition of image stabilisation I hand hold all my macro shots, while the tripod simply gathers dust! I think I paid around 1K AUD for the lens.

The 100mm also doubles as a wonderful portrait lens. The focal length means your not in your subjects face and being a fast lens the short depth of field (dare I say Bokeh) is really pleasing...

In terms of brand, you couldn't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon.

I absolutely agree...

I use an old bridge camera most of the times for my SOTD's, but at work I use a Canon 50d with a 18-55 IS lens and a 100mm Macro F2.8 USM for macro photography. Also 2 flashes: Speedlite 580EXII and a Macro Twin Lite MT-24-EX (the last one for detailed macro shootings).

The built-in flash in these cameras usually is nothing to write home about, you may want to get a good flash like the Speedlite 580EXII.

You may want to have a 50mm lens. They are a lot of fun to work with also.

Always try and buy the fastest lens you can afford. That's always my philosophy. I want as much control over my depth as I can muster.

All that being said, I don't think you can go wrong with a Cannon or a Nikon. Typically you will see Cannons have faster motors in them, but that should only concern you if you do the type of shooting that requires a faster motor. I always look at the speed at which it will shoot, but that's just me, I like to have the ability to shoot like that when I'm shooting sports or wildlife. When I get to shoot sports or wildlife that is. LOL.